Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/15/1989 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission Wednesday, March 15, 19$9 ?:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Members Dresser, Colson, Davis & Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Michel, Esmond & Council Liaison STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Puller., Senior Planner Kee and Planning Technician 8olk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of March 2, 1989. Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the draft minutes as submitted. Mr. Moore seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0;. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 89-203: Final Plat - Plantation Meadow - ETJ subdivision. • See commentary under Agenda Item No. 4. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 89-204: Final Plat - Plantation Wood - ETJ subdivision. Mr. Gallaway asked permission to describe agenda items 3 ~: 4 together. Permission was granted. He then identified the 2 tracts of land which lie in the County, but within the City's F.TJ. He generally described ±he proposed division of the tracts into several large residential.-type lots, explained that the technical divi:~ions of the City have reviewed the plats and have identified no problems and have offered no comments. Mr. Gallaway then explained that both plats cover laxici which is beyond any City service areas, that staff would recommend approval of the plats as proposed. Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve Agenda Item No. 3, PB:Z No. $9-203 and Agenda Item #4, P&Z No. $9-204 as submitted and with Presubmission Conference conditions. Mr. Colson seconded the mot:i.on which carried unanimously (5-0;. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 89-303: Preliminary Plat - Emerald Forest Phase 8. Mr. Gallaway identified the land area covered b;= this proposed plat, pointing out that this phase of the Emerald Forest subdivision is separated from the existing, de?~eloping areas by a substantial amount of flood plain. He explained that: this land is now zoned A-0, and it must be rezoned before any development can take place. He • stated that staff would recommend approval of this preliminary plat wi.t:h all conditions listed on the report of the Presubmission Conference which was h+~ld on !~7arch 2, 19$9 to revieca the proposal. • Mr. Moore asked what will happen to the road providing access to the City's wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Callaway replied that eventually it will be closed with the timing being closely coordinated with the developer, with future access to be taken via Appomattox Drive. Mr. Dresser asked if it will remain a drive to which Mr. Callaway replied that it is an easement now. Mr. Dresser then asked if it anticipated that it will become another exit or egress to this subdivision to whi:,•h Mr. Callaway replied that is not anticipated. Mr. Dresser explained that h+~ has asked this question because he is acaare of similar problems of an unimproved drive being used for access to a subdivision, and he would like to get that question resolved prior to Final Platting of this phase of Emerald Forest subdivision. Mr. Colson asked how it is possible to plat ane-half of a street to which Mr. Callaway replied that staff is still carrying on research regarding that proposal, as staff is not entirely certain that it complies with ordinance requirements. Mr. Dresser said he is troubled wrth the possibility of future property owners thinking they will be able to take access to their lots via this unimproved accesssaay, and he would like for those same people to know up front, before a purchase is made, that access to this subdivision will be taken only from Appomattox Drive. He went on to say that if curb cuts are going to be made along Spring Creek road, there is no doubt that even a dirt road will be used as access. Mr. Wells of Municipal Development Group, representing t:he developer Name forward and stated that although that particular street is shown as a collector street in the Comprehensive Plan, it cannot be used as such until it is upgraded. Mr. Dresser stated that it will be used as long as it is accessible, and he wants the r+~cord to • shocti= that that road is not planned for access to this phase of the subdivision. Mr. Wells said there is only one land owner who must take access via that road, ber_ause the property, the Kapchinski land, is landlocked without it. Mr. Colson made a motion to approve this preliminary plat with presubmissio;n conference conditions and the additional condition that, the question regarding access via Sewer Tap Road be resolved prior to approval of any final plats of the Brea which include any portion of that road. Mr. Dresser seconded the motion and expl>ined that: his concern is really the probability of continued use of an unimproved road for access t.o this subdivision. Votes were cast on the motion with listed conditions, and the motion carried unanimously ;5-0;. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Other business. Mr. Callaway informed the Commissioners that the plat of Southwood Valley Section 24 which they had considered and partially at the last meeting, had also been determined by Council that the area along the future extension of Welsh Street should be tabled and directed staff to provide additional information at the first meeting in April. regarding that question. Mr. Moore asked about a tour of the Centroid Ranch and Mr. Callacti=ay stated that the Commissioners can form groups of three and set up a tour directly with the developer, or Y:e would be happy to serve as coordinator if they so desired. PR•Z Minutes 3-15-89 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Adjourn. `There was no other business and Chairman Sawtelle adjourned the regular meeting and invited the Commissioners to take a seat at the table on the floor for the s-aorkshop ~ti~hich would follow immediately. APPROVED: ._,_ i ~, % ,r" ,..`~ -.. ( r ~ ~~ t{~ f A '°'~ '`~ `"'~`"~"~y Gha~irman,~Nancy Sawtelle ~' 1 ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones i• PR<Z Minutes 3-15--8Q Page 3 MINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop held immediately following regular meeting Wednesday, March 15, 1989 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Members Dresser, Colson, Davis ~: Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Michel, Esmond 8: Council Liaison STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Callaway, Gity Engineer Pullen, Senior Planner Kee and Planning `Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Continued review of Land Use Plan, Development Policies/Standards and Thoroughfare Plan for update of Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Callaway opened the cvorkshop by explaining that staff is prepared to bring before the Commission the Land Use Plan and some alternatives to t:he current, plan with the hope of t•eceiving direction from the Commission following this meeting to enable them to prepare a final draft of the entire Gity for consideration at the next wc:rkshop. He stated that adequate dire%tion has been given in several areas, but he sl;ill has questions in some areas, and would begin by addressing the Highway 6 South Area. He explained the graphics on display of the Current Land Use Plan, which rej.'lects higher density uses at what was thought was going to be the major interchanges, i.e • Rock Prairie Road, Barron Road and Greens Prairie Road, t,Tith the remaining ].and as low density= residential. He then showed another graphic which exemplified the Zoning Pattern as it e~:ists He asked for special attention to be directed at the graphics referred to as "Alternate #1" and "Alternate #2", and explained that. "Alternate #1" shows the existing Land Use Plan with existing zoning superimposed and with minor adjustments for logical changes of uses. He explained that this plan provides for approximately 400 acres of commercial development from the area at Rock Prairie Road to South of Greens Prairie Road. He then explained "Alternate #2" which shows development policies as they ~•:c~uld be applied to the area, with commercial locations at the major interchanges as they will be developed in an area south of Rock Prairie Road to North of Greens Prairie Road, cti~ith the existing commercial development included except for the small existing commercial development in front of the Shenandoah Subdivision, and that has been excluded since it is not consistent with development policies. Mr. Callaway pointed ou± the differences :in the two plans, including the "transitional areas" included on Alternate #2, which could serve as language to replace that used by the consultants, but would actually comply with that intent. Mrs. Kee then addressed the proposed transitional areas and explained they could be handled in one of two ways: ;l)By having them consist of distinct zoning districts such as A-P, C-N, R-4, R-5, R-6 and Conditional Uses, adding that this could. be • done now under the current zon:~ng ordinance, and staff .,could hope the Commission would consider this to be the appropriate manner to use the transitional areas; or ;2)B3= having them consist of different: regulations within the adjacent, districts PR•Z Plan 2000 Update Workshop 3-15-89 Page 1 for some distance into each district, thus possibly limiting some uses, setback or • other considerations, adding that this approach would require ordinance amerulments because there is no way to address this type transitional area under the current. ordinances. Mr. Dresser asked for clarification, citing his understanding of this is th~:t the transitional buffer area can now be used without changing the ordinance. Mx•s. Kee replied that is correct, and it can be done by using the zoning districts wr;ich are already considered "buffer zones". Mr. Callaway expanded that reply by stating that to an extent, that is being done now, and this would simply be a different c,ray of stating a current policy. Mr. Colson stated that he likes "Alternate #1" in the Rock Prairie Road triangle on the east side of S.H.6, but he likes "Alternate #2" on the west side in the Graham Road area, and thinks that should be extended to the caest to at least show existing businesses. He went on to say that he thinks existing businesses and enterprises should be shown, and then the buffer area should be shoran around them. Mr. Callaway said he agrees to a certain extent, but would hesitate to show something as small as the Blue Dolphin on the Land Use Plan, but it could be addressed b;= including the "buffer statement" in the Development Policies by making a statement such as "use this type buffer around non-conforming areas". Mr. Colson agreed that would be acceptable. Mr. Dresser asked cahat caould happen. around the creek just, south of Graham Road with. "Alternate #2" and Mr. Callaway replied that as he views the general nature and flexibility of "Alternate #2", if apartments were proposed by a developer, he would interpret that as being in compliance with this plan. • Mr. Moore asked about streets which run north;sout.h, parallel. to S.H.6. Mr. Callaway replied that Longmire can be extended on the west side, and he would recommend that it. be kept rather close to the highway in the Graham Road vicinity, with a i.ransition further away coming in the Shenandoah area; they. on the other side of the h:ighsaaJ=, Marsh Boulevard has been developed in the Greens Prairie Road area, and it. will probabl~r be used to tie in toward the north. Mr. Dresser asked if the Cit:~= will rezone the areas 4•:here thE~ current. zoning does not comply with the uses reflected ou "Alternate #2" and Mr. Callaway replied that can he considered, but. it should be examined with a great deal of care. Mr. Dresser said that it seems rather strange to come cut caith a Land Use Flan c4=t~ictz makes some existing zoning non-conforming. Mr. Callaway stated that he Goes rot totally disagree, and if the Council & Commission think that the currex:t zoning is correct and will be permanent, it should be reflected. Mr. Moore said that t.e thinks "Alternate #2" lends itself to Hera, undeveloped areas which can be dressed up to compete with other highly appealing areas across the country, with only adequate, and not too much, commercial. He added that this caill surely appeal tc: F.c~onomic Pevelopment People. Mr. Callaway then asked the Commissioners to focus their attention on the E;~st Bypass Study area, pointing out there are several ways tc; handle this area on the 'revised land use plan, with "Alternate #1" exhibiting the results of the East; Bypass Land Use Study, plus an expansion of office-commercial. to fill. in the gap which was left by following property lines at the time of the study. He then explained that "Alternate • #2" shows virtually the same thing, but,caith the addition of a transitional buffer area where the Southwest Parkway overpass is located going into Raintree Drive. 1'~:Z Plan 2000 update Workshop 3-15-89 Page 2 Mr. Colson said that he thinks "Alternate #2" would be the logical. plan to use since • it I•ecognizes the impact the interchange swill make. Mr. Dresser asked sahy FI transitional buffer has not been used at the interchange which will. go into F,merald Parkway, to which Mr. Callaway replied that he agrees that some type of bufj.'ering should be included, but pointed rnat there is not enough room left. for the 200 foot: transitional buffer and any commercial development. Mr. Dresser then stated he does net like the 200 foot strip, especially singe the development policies call for commercial development to be a minimum of 400 feet in depth. Mr. Callaway stated that the City is limited in the area of planning; at the entrance to Raintree Drive, but that a C-N Neighborhood Business area could be accommodated. He then went on to explain the problems which had been encountered with the Raintree residents at the time the Westinghouse site was being prot>osed. Mr. Dresser then stated he prefers "Alternate #1" with a C-N area or buffer at the intersections of the interchange. Mr. Moore agreed that the transitional buffer aI-ea should be used at the intersections rather than the strip of commercial shos~Jn on "Alternate #2". Mr. Dresser stated that he sti=ould like to avoid showing commercial sites with less than a 400 foot depth, and to draw our maps showing anything less than that would tend to encourage potential developers to use that as the minimum. The Commission then directed staff' to finalise "Alternate #1" with a Neighborhood Commercial area at the intersection. Mr. Callaway then addressed the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor, and suggested that the area defined as the Wolf Pen Creek Tax Increment Financing District be used and reflect it as "the Wolf Pen Creek Development Corridor" which would be a new category i.:o be • added to the Development Policies as the policy recommendations included in the stud;+ of the area completed by the consulting firm, J. T. Duncan R. Associates. A.!1 agreed to this suggestion. Mr. Callaway identified another area to be considered as the F.M.2818 R_• F.M,.EO area which has been shown as industrial on the current Land Use Plan, but has recently been zoned for commercial development. He pointed out the alternatives which could be used as "Alternate #1" would leave it as it is currently shosti~r. ;industri:31); "Alternate ,#2" would reflect the area as it is currently zoned, i.e., commercial, and to drop the industrial designation; and "Alternate #3" which could go beyond the bounds of what is shown now and try to deal with land uses in the area while keeping in mind that the future Highway 47 intersection will have a large impact on the area. All agreed the interchange created at the intersection of the future Hs.*~=. 4'? and F.M.60 should be included in the plan, and Mr. Colson stated he thinks the transitional buffer area should be used or. this plan. Mr. Moore stated he thinks the entrance to the city created at the interchange should be a sort of "ceremonial entrance" and asked if there is some type of zoning district, to address t.hai~. Mr. Call.asaay replied there is Ilot~:ing like that available in the current ordinance, adding that as things stand Host=, nothing short of purchasing the land will guarantee defilzite control. Mr. Moore said he would like to have the idea of a reser~;=e ~OnLtlg district taken to the Council, and asked who sti=ould do that. Mrs. Davis stated that the intersection cif F.M.60 and Hsvy. 47 sti=ill be further to the west than staff is indicating on its graphics. • Staff was directed to prepare graphics using "Alternate #3". Mr. Callaway said the next area to discuss would be the area along F.M.158 :in the P&Z Plan 2000 Update Workshop 3-15-89 Page 3 r r1 • Harvey Area, and he would suggest that the current Development Policies be shown on the plan which could reflect the major intersections as commercial. The Commissioners agreed and so directed staff to prepare the graphics. Mr. Callaway then brought up the area south of Greens Prairie Road, pointint; out the current Land Use Plan reflects over 1.000 acres of industrial development, which i.s an amount that is not feasible, and he would proposed to ackno4ti=ledge what has developed, include some commercial, and downsize the remaining area proposed to be industrial. Iie added that he would also proposed to show some public facilities in blue„ but to reflect the rest as low density residential development. Mr. Dresser asked if staff is proposing something larger than 200 a%-res of industrial development and P4r. Callaway replied that. figure would sound reasonable, and then staff will simply deal c,~ith the commercial already discussed. Mr. Moore made a motion to adjourn the workshop. Mr. Colson seconded the me>tion. Mr. Callaway stated he would like to schedule another workshop in two weeks and the Commissioners chose Wednesday, March 29th for the workshop. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Adjourn. The motion to adjourn carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. P&Z Plan 2000 Update Workshop 3-15-89 Page 4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE Wednesday, March 15, 1989 NAME ADDRESS ~ . ~; )o `1 ~=1 ~ Y'/ ~ -~--~ ~=~ % ~ ~ l-fir l~%: ~~' ~~ ,~- 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7- 8. 9. 10. il. 12. 13. 14. 15- 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.